Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WzmO++VVtDrY1FTiSy2cNdJdMvi2OjkR5eMgZU7h2O_1kg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages
Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages |
Список | pgsql-pkg-debian |
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote: > Putting this 0.3-2 on top of master will only work if you also do the > "1.0" change in debian/source/format, or else dpkg will complain about > differences between the 0.3 tarball and the checkout. (That's why I > suggested 0.4.) I can go with 0.4-1, then. > Does the extension sql file have any difference between the versions? > What I'm often seeing is that extension authors will increment the > extension version even for C-only changes. Yes, because we need to revoke execution permissions at the SQL level. We're no longer checking for superuser at the C code level, and so are following what has since become "upstream", Postgres contrib. > If it's really the same extension, just a newer codebase, why not have > 1.0 in PG10, and use 1.1 here. Renaming the extension somewhat implies > it would be co-installable with the original. They could be co-installable, by changing symbol names. There is going to be a contrib amcheck 1.1 before too long, so if I'm not going to change the name of the extension, I should at least make sure that the version numbers stay in a non-overlapping range, to make sure that there is never confusion during upgrade. I am tempted to increment versions ahead of extension version, for C-only changes. That would allow me to create a 0.4-1 without changing or adding any SQL files. What do you think of that idea? Any particular reason why I should favor extension/package version 1.0, that I might have missed? > (On diffing the SQL files, I see that the difference is that "PARALLEL > RESTRICTED" got dropped, is that intended? It is not reflected in any > of the amcheck--*--*.sql files.) I don't believe that that's critical, since we default to unsafe. The Postgres contrib version is PARALLEL RESTRICTED on general principle, not because it matters. Leaving this out means I don't have to deal with special cases on Postgres versions that don't know about parallelism. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-pkg-debian mailing list (pgsql-pkg-debian@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-pkg-debian
В списке pgsql-pkg-debian по дате отправления: